A Double-Edged Sword

The media is now referring to what's going on in and around Baghdad as civil war. I remember JD comparing it to the Wild West back then and him being more than happy to get out of there when he did. Somehow, the Wild West sounds more palpable than a civil war. The insurgents are now experts at planting IED's and soldiers are being injured or killed by them nearly everyday.

Though RedLegMeg's post wasn't about the media, her mention of the media reminded me of the effect that media coverage can have, and often does have, on those of us on the homefront.

Some of us are glued to the news, others prefer to shut it off.

If there were one thing I would like to see more of, it would be media coverage of the good deeds and good works that are undertaken by our troops on a daily basis. I think that would be good for their morale, good for our morale and good for outsiders to see more of. The violence is real. We understand that our spouses are often placed in dangerous situations, but it would be a nice change of pace to read or listen to stories that leave us feeling proud rather than panicked.

I live in an area where there are more civilians than military personnel. Afghanistan and Iraq are mentioned in local media coverage, but they're rarely the dominant theme. When I was at Ft. Hood recently, I picked up the local papers. For the most part, they were saturated with war coverage. I imagine that when you live in the immediate vicinity of a military installation, the coverage is very thorough, understandably so. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for those of you who live on or near a military installation?

Media coverage with respect to war can certainly be a double-edged sword. How does media coverage affect you? Do you tune in, or turn off, and why?